posted
Shoud the time line for the Star Trek movies be changed. for example, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (stardate 7412.6) was 2271 but now some say it's 2273. Star Trek II (stardate 8130.4) & Star Trek III (stardate 8210.3) are both set in 2285 but both stardates are diffenet. Star Trek VI (stardate 9521.6) & Star Trek: Generations (stardate unknown) are set in 2293, but The Enterprise-B Plaque said that it was commissioned on stardate 9715.5 and the S.S. Lakul FLT started on stardate 9683.3. The stardates and the years seem to be off.
Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Asymptotic time relation.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
TMP should be no earlier than 2273, since "Q2" establishes the ship as still being active under Kirk's command as of 2270 while Kirk has been desk-bound for 2.5 years when the movie starts - although it could be as late as 2278, by which year at least some Starfleet units adopt the new red uniforms as per TNG "Cause and Effect". The rest of the movies should come after 2283, which is the date on McCoy's bottle of Romulan ale.
Apart from that, it's all free for interpretation. The movie stardates don't make much sense, save for (mostly) being sequential. But one could always decide to follow the "1000 dates per year" scheme and discard the Chronology dates (which were guesswork to begin with) and the "78 years later" reference in Generations, and plead time dilation, asylumic time inflation or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by SwSmith: Star Trek II (stardate 8130.4) & Star Trek III (stardate 8210.3) are both set in 2285 but both stardates are diffenet.
Technically if you go by the line about Khan being stranded for 15-years, then TWoK should be set in 2282...15-years after the generally accepted date for "Space Seed" (2267). The published chronology was really sloppy in some parts and doesn't always reflect well certain parts of canon. Only problem with that date though is the Romulan Ale being dated 2283...but then why would the Romulans put an Earth Gregorian Calendar date on their alcohol? Surely it would make more sense for that to be a Romulan date.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
If bottled for the Earth market, could be an error in date conversion. Or maybe, given how hazardous the pestilential liquid is, perhaps it's not a date of bottling but a date of earliest possible safe consumption!
posted
Hmm. Not sure - I thought I remembered a thread that went into the rationale for putting TMP a lot later than 2271 - something like ten years, although such a sugggestion'd be immediately nullified by the Bozeman's crew wearing TWOK-era uniforms in 2278. And being a lot older than three years like the one you link to (but of course it's three AND A HALF years ago - why, that's nearly FOUR years! See how hard it is to develop a chronology based on sopken rough-approximations of periods of time?). Maybe it was an article on EAS (or even SWDAO!) or something.
posted
Yes! it was me then, and me now. and I still think are dates wrong, but I could be wrong. Star Trek VI should be 2292, Star Trek Generations should stay at 2293, the Enterprise was to be commissioned in 2294 on stardate 9715.5 but in Star Trek Generations the Enterprise was launched for a test run, not yet finsh.
Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought I'd posted my rant that TWOK starts in March of 2285, with that arc going through the splashdown on Earth in mid-2286 (at the latest). TUC and the first part of GEN taking place in 2293. The dating referents from TWOK applied backward to TOS make "Space Seed" fifteen years previous. THis being Kirk's 50th birthday, and him being "about thirty-four" in the first season of TOS... That places TOS approximately from 2268 to 2273, with TMP in 2276. This leaves a little room before the uniforms are changed in (or before) 2277.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: That places TOS approximately from 2268 to 2273
The thing is, we know from Voyager that Kirk's mission ended in 2270 (as per Icheb's pointless presentation)...so for TWoK to be set in 2285 and to be 15-years after "Space Seed", "Space Seed" needs to be set in 2270 and presumably be one of the final events in Kirk's mission. Unless TOS seasons don't flow chronologically or Kirk took NCC-1701 out for another mission in 2270, it's impossible given that "Space Seed" was a first season episode. It's either got to be that TWoK isn't set in 2285, or the 15-year line is inaccurate.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
Depends whose word you'd rather take, that of a loopy stranded superman or a deBorgified nerd, I guess.
The whole thing's a set of knots in a piece of elastic. You could try to line up one with a certain point, but then any tension and the other knots will slip out of alignment. The events of the middle four TOS films all took place within a maximum period of about a year - maybe even just six months. It'd be nice to nail it down to one specific year (or spread between two consecutive years). The only real niggle with doing that and settling on 2282 is the date on the Romulan ale bottle, and while we know that date was chosen by the prop people to represent the actual year 2283, we can also guess not a lot of thought went into choosing it.
Why do I say that? Because, this is pre-Okuda after all - remember, ST2: TWOK was a last-gasp attempt at making a successful and popular Star Trek film, they had no idea of all this that would come from it, if it had flopped that'd have likely been it, no more Trek. Until a comedy version was made a la Starsky & Hutch, with Owen Wilson as Kirk, Ben Stiller as Spock, Will Ferrell as McCoy, Ricky Gervais as Scotty. . . I oculd go on but I'd lose the will to live!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
